Saturday, January 28, 2012

Wild attack in Perth

More Australia Day news, this time from Perth. A gang of 20 young men of African descent went on the rampage in Perth, targeting a young white man to chase down, to rob and to viciously beat:

A PERTH teenager has spoken of his terror after he was violently bashed by a gang of thugs who repeatedly kicked him and stomped on his head after being racially taunted.

Perth detectives are hunting up to 20 youths, believed to be of African descent, who were involved in the attack in the city at 11.30pm last night.

James Claxon

The police described the attack this way:

Detective Sergeant Steve Coelho said the gang appeared to have been walking from the McIver train station on a "rampage" last night.

"They have singled out white Australians and for no reason whatsoever, completely unprovoked, they've attacked one of the males. That led to a vicious assault. He's had severe facial injuries and his head literally stomped on,'" Det-Sgt Steve Coelho said.

The Australian media has picked up on the fact that the white teen was stomped so hard in the face that the attacker's shoe print was clearly left behind. But that's been happening in the U.S. for some time - Lawrence Auster at VFR has reported on attacks in which the victim is repeatedly stomped on the head, e.g. here, here and here - it seems to be a trademark of these kind of attacks.

I'll make just one political point about this. The liberal assumption is that whites are a false category oppressor group, who use violence against the non-whites they have "othered". That's why hate crime legislation is assumed to protect non-whites from whites. It's also why so many Daily Mail readers, when commenting on the Prime Minister fleeing from Aboriginal protesters, assumed that Aborigines in Australia are victims of mistreatment by whites.

But the reality on the ground is in most cases very different. The Perth bashing is an example of this. Here we have a relatively small non-white immigrant group who feel so bold in a new country that they form a gang and mercilessly bash the white native born inhabitants. It's difficult to imagine this the other way round. If a group of a few thousand white Australians decided to migrate to Nigeria, is it likely that their teenage sons would form gangs and stomp the faces of the local Nigerians?

85 comments:

You couldn't pay me to live in an area with a large African immigrant population. The left "Anti-racists" dishonestly will say my issue is with the colour of the skin.The real issue with Africans is their behaviour and their way of thinking. Which is universal.African gang crime is now a problem everywhere in the world that doesn't have a strict policy on keeping them out.I had a friend in Japan tell me it was a huge issue there. Japan of all places. I personally won't forget the Scandanavian cities at night i have never seen so many black African gangs in my life freely grabbing and groping any white woman that walked past.

I read the third story from VFR about the near hit by the car turning into the guy getting stomped almost to death.A similar thing with a car happened to me at a university (in Australia). A car loaded with Africans who I think were smoking weed in the car. Was speeding around the campus grounds they didn't slow down when I crossed the road and sped up. Nearly hitting me. I exchanged them an angry look which they did too.It was then later when I was walking through the campus I encountered the same three Africans. I had been having a really bad day and was in a murderous mood I just walked right through them like they weren't there. Forcing them to get out of the way. The expression on their face was pure shock. The African students at my campus were too accustomed to freely menacing the docile eloi student population.

I live in Perth.. I also know many lovely Black Africans and their families. One in particular, is a carer for our autistic son.. He takes our son out on excursions to give my husband and I a break.Our son loves him. He is a good and decent man.

In fact I got to know these African people because many are carers who look after kids and people with disabilities. My son's carer is married to a white Australian girl (oh shock horror!!!)and they have a beautiful little one year old girl.. Cute as a button.

This African carer is a very responsible guy. He will soon be a qualified psych nurse. He already has a full time position lined up..

I had never been personally acquainted with any African person until I got to know many of the carers through my son's autism. I have been to their homes. Celebrated with them on the birth of a child. Danced with them (is that a sin? tsk tsk)laughed with them.. eaten with them...

They are good people.. I have seen no violence. The Africans(mostly Zambians) I know are a peaceful family oriented bunch with a good work ethic. I am proud to call these people my friends.

There are good and bad in every race.

The thugs that set upon that teenage kid should be locked up.They are criminals!

This is the first time that I am aware of any incident such as the above happening here in Perth..I have lived here my whole life.

"The real issue with Africans is their behaviour and their way of thinking. Which is universal."

I am more worried about people with such intolerant and rigid mindsets as the person who wrote that comment above.

It's a shame your experiences are with professionals and so narrow!! You also shamelessly choose to write about your relationships by saying that you have danced with migrants from Africa and then foolishly asked "is that a sin?". You are NOT helping, by stirring the pot and creating any further division. I would like to read your thoughs once you (god forbid) have experienced an UNPROVOKED crime from someone YOU have welcomed to live with us in Australia!!

Mate I've been bashed twice in my life, both unprovoked one attacker was white the other black. No one blames the first bashing on Anglo Saxons, but the second was blamed on the mans race. Every individual is exactly that, an individual. Blame individuals for thier actions not entire races...if you can read and write then you shouldn't need to have this explained to you. Your opinions are just racist no matter how you dress it to look otherwise. You do realize when you slag off a whole race, you slag off innocent babies and little children too? Shame on you.

Bacondrum, your comment isn't as logical as you seem to think it is. It's true that there are criminals within all races. It's true as well that we should be careful not to malign a whole race. Nonetheless, the rates of violence amongst races does differ considerably. If you introduce into Australian cities very large populations of Africans, then the local population is going to be subject to a significantly greater degree of violence. That's reality. The shame is on those people who are not willing to think ahead to the consequences of the decisions they make, not on those who think realistically about these issues.

"But, truly, Zambians are a peaceful people. They hardly ever argue or fight. When a conflict occurs, they resolve it through calm discussion. I think the Japanese could probably learn something from them in this regard."

I believe that the men involved in that cowardly attack were Sudanese Muslims..

What I do not like is that too many people try and tar all Africans with the same brush.

Violent Africans from war torn countries such as Sudan and Somalia should not be allowed into the country. Zambians(and Zambia is officially a Christian nation) on the other hand should be welcomed. They are peace loving hard working and integrate well into our society.

What I'm about to write will forever blow my chances of being accepted into politically correct circles - but I probably reached that point long ago anyway.

You wrote:

My son's carer is married to a white Australian girl (oh shock horror!!!)and they have a beautiful little one year old girl.. Cute as a button.

Now I wish this couple all the best and I don't doubt at all that the baby is cute.

But for my female readers I'd like to point out a couple of problems with black husband/white wife marriages.

First, they are the least stable marriages of all. The divorce rate is double the average (66%).

Second, a white Australian woman who marries a man from Zambia is not going to have children who look anything like her or any other member of her family. The children will look African (that's true even of the very blonde Heidi Klum - you would not know that the three children she had with Seal were her own).

And that psychologically goes against the aim of reproduction. We generally hope to reproduce something of ourselves when we have children - we hope to have something of ourselves carry on.

Finally, the children of such partnerships are going to have more trouble developing an identity in later life (something that a regular contributor to this site, Elizabeth, has written about from her own personal experience).

They will look mostly African, but have a white mother and grandparents. So which tradition are they to look to? Which tradition will they seek to carry on? If they choose one side are they then insulting the other? Or are they to accept that they have no tradition?

I know people aren't going to agree with this but the issue is as much a law and order issue as it is Africans behaviour.The only way the west is going to rid itself of ethnic violence is to have zero tolerance, racial profiling, active discrimination and mass arrests/deportations. Until either the ethnic group leaves the host country or becomes compliant and a model of an upstanding citizen.Those who commit murder and rape should be punished so severly, the death penalty should make a return. In the cases of organised grooming gangs perpetrators should be executed no questions.Even gays start sounding like I do after they have been bashed up for the millionth time by ethnics.

Kathy Farrelly said...Is it a sin to marry outside of one's race?There are lots of reasons to oppose mixed race unions. People are often unable to articulate why besides a gut feeling, they are quickly dismissed as a bigot because of this.One of the best examples of why it is wrong I read on VFR recently. The Dutch super model Doutzen Kroes, she is apparently an spokeswoman for the Frisian* people. However she has married a subsaharan African and has had a kid with him.It is hypocritical. It also does not make sense to be for instance an Anglo-celtic spokesperson but to be purposefully moving your line away from it. For this reason I would not trust someone like this. They have reasons for doing this that are full of "racism"

But I do think that a genuinely spiritual person would recognise the transcendent value of the tradition he belongs to. Therefore, when we are asked to hold fast to the good, we would understand that to include making a positive contribution to an ongoing tradition.

If interracial unions rob the resulting children of good things (e.g. looking like their parents, etc.) then interracial unions are bad.

You sidestep this point because you know you can't refute it, and you demand scriptural citations against interracial unions because you know there aren't any that you'd accept. You aren't arguing in good faith when you do this.

Answer Mark's statement, if you can: cite one, just one, concrete, real benefit to the children of interracial marriages which outweighs the disadvantages Mark has enumerated. And ask yourself if you have any real reason to believe that your son's home nurse or his wife thought about the effects of their actions on their children.

Finally, what about us, white men? Do you know how unattractive the vast majority of black women are to us? I live around plenty. To ask us, as you are asking the Australian man who should have married your home nurse's wife, to exchange our own women for a black woman for whom we feel nothing, is an act born of calloused, racial, female chauvinism, which considers the needs and desires of white men to be secondary to the aberrant desires of a few white women. And you, in the name of the Church (!) defend these selfish cretins! Do you have no loyalty, no love for white men? And you accuse us?

Putting God first. This means that we conform our lives to his principles..

Nowhere is it said that we should not marry outside of our race..Check the Catholic Catechism for yourself.

"But I do think that a genuinely spiritual person would recognise the transcendent value of the tradition he belongs to."

But what is it that God wants? It is he whom we should please, not ourselves.

A genuinely spiritual person would recognize that a man who loves God(be he black white or brindle)and puts God first in his life ahead of his own whims is indeed a good and decent man. Tradition does not make one a better man..

"Therefore, when we are asked to hold fast to the good, we would understand that to include making a positive contribution to an ongoing tradition."

Sorry, that makes no sense to me. Traditions come and go.. It's a man made thing...Misplaced pride in one's race.

Hold fast to God and HIS laws. This overides all..

If my daughter came to me (and my husband thinks as I do, too) when she was a few years older and said that she had fallen in love with an African man who was a practicing Catholic, I would be overjoyed..

If she came to me instead and said that she wanted to marry an Englishman who was a nominal Catholic,( and never really had any belief in his faith) then I would be extremely saddened and upset.

If you or I were to die tomorrow Mark, God will be judging us on how much we have loved him and kept his commandments.. How we have treated our fellow man. Not on whether we have upheld tradition and married a fellow white person...

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Galatians 3:28

Somehow...I doubt that there will be separate rooms for different races in heaven. ;)

Kathy, you just made an excellent, scriptural argument for homosexual "marriage". And you still have yet to answer Mark's point. Are you wilfully derailing this debate?

But if you insist on a biblical argument, have you never heard of Babel? Do you think God was ignorant if the racial consequences if separating people linguistically and geographically over time? Wasn't that indeed the point?

And in Revelations, does it not say that every tribe and nation is gathered before the throne of God? How do you suppose John could see the different nations if they hadn't been visibly distinct? Also, if God thinks race is only skin-deep and of no eternal consequence, why would he place it forever before his throne in the faces of his worshippers? Why wouldn't he just make us all coffee colored when he gives us our new, resurrected bodies? If racial distinction is so evil, how could it exist before God's throne.

Your argument fails every basic test, including that of Scripture. So why hold into it?

I adhere to the tenets of the Catholic faith.And I am certainly not perfect.. I have made mistakes, and no doubt I will continue to make them as we all do.

However, marrying outside of one's race is not a sin.. It is not wrong.

The Catholic Catechism does not condemn this.

Go to the Vatican website and peruse it for yourself.

"And you still have yet to answer Mark's point."

I put God before man. Simple as that. A good man who puts God first in his life is the kind of man I hope will marry my daughter one day. Colour is irrelevant.

My son's carer and his wife are very happy together.. There has been no discrimination as far as I can tell. They have black friends .. and white friends.

Their baby goes to daycare a few hours a week as the wife is attending Uni part-time.She loves it and is treated well by the staff.The child's maternal Grandparents are dead. This stuff about wanting to have a kid the same colour as yourself is just really a selfish personal thing. God never said it should be that way.. Man did..

I see no insurmountable problems here for this couple. They are a good young couple.. People warm to them. They have a lot of support. They love each other and they trust in God.

There is nowhere in the Catholic Catechism that says a black man cannot marry a white woman because this will mean one less white woman for a white guy.

Are you serious.???

I take my faith seriously. I would not want my daughter to marry a man of little faith or no faith just because he was WHITE and had some sort of sense of entitlement or superiority.

I'm not Catholic Kathy ME don't you dare try to say your catholic faith has to be adhered to by all whites who are NOT catholic or even Christian.You remind me of silly immigrants who come here like Filipinos and start to lecture white people on the catholic faith oblivious to the fact that the person they are talking to is not catholic they just assume all whites are Catholic Christians and they can speak for them.I find your views revolting in that regard.I don't particularly care for people like you who have merged liberalism and religion to justify throwing away their culture and ancestry. You even get enjoyment out of it.As far as I'm concerned you and me are about as different as a nigerian and a swede.

The argument that the kids won't look like either parent or part of both parents' families is garbage. Children come out with facial and physical characteristics of their parents regardless of the ethnic mixes of the parents. *other people choose not to notice*, but the kid's eyes and nose shape are still dad's or mum's, as the case may be. That brown girl's shoulders might be narrow like her paternal line's women tend to have, even if she is brown and her father is white.

When two families come together, the children still carry that mashup. There are plenty of black haired white kids who look nothing like their blond white parents, but *other people choose to see it differently*.

That entire criticism is just a tarted-up version of 'all my ethny are unique-looking, but all those other folks look the same, you can scarcely tell them apart'.

I'll put this to Kathy. Is the boy in the article Catholic?Do you think the point of Marks post is to discuss Catholicism and how is exonerates Africans from criticism because Catholicism demands "WHITES" be ok with race mixing. Which has nothing to do with a young man getting his head nearly caved in.Where is your outrage that a young man nearly had his life taken away by a racist gang of Africans?Where is your outrage that "white" people cannot freely walk down the street without fear of being killed by an African gang?I would think a person in their own country should be able to walk down a street and not be nearly killed by foreigners because of his skin colour.You have no morals.

anon 6:51You are willfully ignoring the fact that a European mating with Negro will have children who will most likely lose the Eye colour of the European partner, the hair colour, the hair texture, the facial structure, skin tone and the behaviour.You are the very definition of ignorant.The child will look nothing like the European partner and the qualities that made them attractive in the first place are lost.

anon 6:55You did not read the article. The gang were known to police to have been harassing white people prior to this kid getting bashed. They were reported by others?Are all the bad white people lying?

The argument that the kids won't look like either parent or part of both parents' families is garbage.

No, the problem is that the genes connected to the distinctive European phenotype are mostly recessive. Therefore, if you put a person with wholly European ancestry together with a person with wholly African ancestry you don't get a child who looks like 50% of one and 50% of the other. The child will come out looking like an African.

Again, look at what happened with Heidi Klum. If you click here you'll see a photo of her two oldest children, Leni and Henry. The girl's father is European; the boy's father an African. Some of Heidi's phenotype definitely came out in the girl, but I find it difficult to recognise any in the boy.

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

'E' has not been systematically done. Even when white families get their children taken away for some reason or another, the children are usually given to white guardians.

As for the first item? That's debatable. Birth control has been highly promoted, but it has never crossed the line to large scale coercion with White populations. (Isolated individuals deemed clinically retarded or otherwise "unfit" to have children were forcibly sterilized in some countries, however.)

d) is applicable if you consider Homosexual lifestyles are encouraged by the Government.Gays don't have kids (excluding test tubes)Promoting women to be in careers at the prime of their breeding life. Less kids.Then there is the really fanatical pro-abortion position and yes I have read of incidences where specifically white women were targeted for birth control around the word, in Britian for example(partly because forcing it on non-white British women was considered a human rights violation)The EU even has laws that make it illegal to get a girl pregnant in certain circumstances. The effects of the law can last for years after the situation that called for it has expired.

I'll continue with this chain of thought. Some European countries it was reported were sterilising women for minor personality reasons in the past. This has seemed to evolved into now women are given anti-depressants. EU law prevents a woman taking some drugs from getting pregnant. Like I said this effect continues a year after some drugs have stopped being taken.Regulations like that though temporary echo the past events of women being sterilised in the past.I have personal experience with this setup.

I'm posting a lot but.There is a final thing that is being promoted that is applicable to D)That is miscegenation.If a person has a mixed child it can't be counted among either parents original ethnic group.So it is a demographic decline in numbers.This prevents births in the group.This has been promoted.Nicholas Sarkozy explicitly called for it to happen in France.

You seem to have a disagreement about Catholic theology with Cardinal Mercier of Belgium:

Patriotism, an internal principle of order and of unity, an organic bond of the members of a nation, was placed by the finest thinkers of Greece and Rome at the head of the natural virtues. Aristotle, the prince of the philosophers of antiquity, held disinterested service of the City - that is, the State - to be the very ideal of human duty. And the religion of Christ makes of patriotism a positive law; there is no perfect Christian who is not also a perfect patriot. For our religion exalts the antique ideal, showing it to be realizable only in the Absolute.

But Cardinal Mercier doesn't mention race. Patriotism and racial pride are two different things. GKC puts it this way:

"For one important point about this group is this: that through them, or some of them, there came into full power and possession that curious religion of Race, which I have described as developing from Teutonic sources a little time before. It is not to be confused with patriotism or the unselfish love of one’s country. It is a mere pride in being oneself of a certain real or imaginary race or stock. The Frenchman loves France as if she were a woman; the Nordic Man merely loves himself for being a Nordic Man.”

What a lovely bigoted thing to say about Nordic men.As if it wasn't applicable to anyone else.As if that is what a Nordic man solely believes.I feel sorry for Nordics the entire world is poised to scapegoat them on the alter of multiculturalism.For simply being who they are.

Well that's enormously better than the current situation in which he hates himself for it. A little bit of self-love today wouldn't go astray - not for any of the Western races.

You have to be careful with GKC. He wrote brilliant rhetoric - which can carry you along until you reach a conclusion that makes you suspicious that you've persuaded by his originality of thought or his clever use of language rather than by clear logic.

And it's not easy to disentangle the passage you've quoted. There are bits that are easy to agree with, such as not making a religion of race.

But if it leads you to the idea that there is a patriotism that has nothing at all to do with race, such as that of the French, then you've been misled.

Just think of the situation today. The French have had an influx of people who are not ethnically French - and the result is not a nation of racially diverse people who happily continue to "love France as if she were a woman".

There is, instead, a sense of decline and of loss; a feeling amongst some that the future belongs to others. There is, in other words, a demoralisation of the older national feeling.

"You seem to have a disagreement about Catholic theology with Cardinal Mercier of Belgium"

Not at all Mark.

My African friend (my son's carer) loves his new country and will in due course become a naturalized Aussie.

I'll raise your Cardinal with a Pope, Mark.

"For her part, the Church reiterates that only recognition for the dignity of man, created in the image and likeness of God, can constitute a sure foundation for such an undertaking.

"Indeed, it is this shared origin that gives humankind its shared destiny, which should arouse in everyone a strong sense of solidarity and responsibility.

"I express my sincere hopes the delegates present at the Geneva conference may work together in a spirit of dialogue and acceptance to put an end to all forms of racism, discrimination and intolerance, thus taking a fundamental step towards affirming the universal value of the dignity of man and his rights, in a context of respect and justice for all individuals and peoples," the pope concluded..... "

How do you feel about the young man being stomped on Kathy?Now that you have dropped the Pope cardall forms of racism, discrimination and intolerance, Are you against the racist African gang violence or not?Are you going to keep ignoring the topic of the post?

"Kathy, like many moderns you haven't really thought through the long-term consequences of what you are advocating"

Ah but it is you who are the modern one Mark.

You place man above God.

You have not shown me anywhere how God disapproves of inter racial marriages..

It is you who are shifting ground here. I merely responded to your comment from a Cardinal.. As some other commenter pointed out, patriotism has nothing to do with racism.

I was being polite, as I thought that what that Cardinal said was completely irrelevant to the argument. ..

"You seem to have a disagreement about Catholic theology with Cardinal Mercier of Belgium"

Disagreement with Catholic Theology? You are drawing a long bow there?

One Cardinal does not a conclave make.

"That would certainly rule out what I want - namely the perpetuation of the distinct peoples of the world.

"I WANT"????

Not to mention "my communal identity "

It is not what you or I want, but what God wants.. You seem to have a problem understanding this.Where does it say that a black man cannot marry a white woman..?

Tradition means diddly squat in the eyes of God..

It's also telling that you think a compliment from a man who spouts inciteful vulgar rubbish like this below, means anything..

"Finally, what about us, white men? Do you know how unattractive the vast majority of black women are to us? I live around plenty. To ask us, as you are asking the Australian man who should have married your home nurse's wife, to exchange our own women for a black woman for whom we feel nothing, is an act born of calloused, racial, female chauvinism, which considers the needs and desires of white men to be secondary to the aberrant desires of a few white women. And you, in the name of the Church (!) defend these selfish cretins! Do you have no loyalty, no love for white men? And you accuse us?"

Lol...shakes head..

"After all, your grandchildren will grow up living next to Muslims and Buddhists and Sikhs and Hindus. The chances that they will marry a Catholic are quite slim."

More speculative alarmist nonsense.

My daughter goes to a very good Christian school.. No non Christians allowed. She has made many friends.. Guess what they are all Christians..

Given that she is being guided by caring loving parents who place God above human considerations I think her chances of meeting a good Christian man would be quite high. She is fifteen and is not interested in a career. She is bright but wants to marry young and have kids..

Ah Mark it is what you have not said that has given me more clues than what you have said.

Not once have you mentioned God..

This is typical of people in todays modern secular world.

Once before you tried to tar me with the MODERN brush.. Fact is I am anything but. I do not believe in sex before marriage, nor abortion nor contraception, nor homosexuality. Nor do I believe in racial discrimination.. I understand that it is a sin if one does not attend mass every Sunday.. That the sin is compounded if one receives communion and does not go to confession to seek absolution beforehand.. Masturbation and viewing pornography(whether you are male or female) a serious sin..

Yes indeed I am a real modern type.

Having said all of that, I am very much aware of my own sinfulness and shortcomings.. I pray daily to God and his Blessed Mother for help and guidance. And go to confession.

As a product of an African male/non-African woman union there is credence to the view that there is an identity confusion with most biracial children. By default since the African genes are stronger, we mostly end up reproducing with other Africans but this goes about 10 times more strongly for biracial women such as myself than biracial men since men often try to seek out women like their mothers (e.g. non-African) and females try to seek males like their fathers (e.g. African). There is also the relative non-attraction European men have for brown skinned women and the attraction that European women have for brown skinned men (if European men embark on the interracial route it is typically with Asian women and Latina women).

I am more worried about people with such intolerant and rigid mindsets as the person who wrote that comment above.

Kathy Farrelly you're a wonderful writer but I disagree with this comment. You need a more comprehensive understanding of racial issues. Race is not a social construct and I struggle with this issue everyday (e.g. who will I marry? How will I preserve the lineage of my father and mother? What about all of those people that came before? Crime and deliquency rates?)

No, the problem is that the genes connected to the distinctive European phenotype are mostly recessive. Therefore, if you put a person with wholly European ancestry together with a person with wholly African ancestry you don't get a child who looks like 50% of one and 50% of the other. The child will come out looking like an African.

Again, look at what happened with Heidi Klum. If you click here you'll see a photo of her two oldest children, Leni and Henry. The girl's father is European; the boy's father an African. Some of Heidi's phenotype definitely came out in the girl, but I find it difficult to recognise any in the boy.

Men have evolved to look to the horizon to search for potential danger(and to be hostile to outsiders), to protect you bloody ingrates(I'm married to one of you). I wont condemn you for failing to see the potential danger on the horizon, it may be beyond you as a (voting) woman. Women have evolved to 'tend and befriend', your radar for danger is unreliable, so you can mate with brutes, when desired.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

This is depiciting spiritually wise the Christian Church and is not an argument for biological miscegenation. The Bible is on a whole typically neutral on aspects such as miscegenation between races and concentrates on spiritual matters, save perhaps the depiction of the Jewish people as one nation (plus their avoidance of non-Jews) and other such examples.

Think the issue of race and the Bible as the contrast between science and religion. If we used science then we would end up believing that there is no God because science only deals with the empirical, natural and biological realm but this is an erroneous conclusion in itself for God is a spiritual, immortal being that is outside of space and time. Science therefore cannot a sufficient answer for the existence of God. Likewise spiritual matters aren't always applicable to the natural realm. Perhaps a better method would be finding the link between them (e.g. the soul) and using this a criteria since it is more connected to either realm and is not as 'excluded' as biology and the spirit.

Kathy, your words belie the love you say is in your heart: "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in darkness." 1 John 2:9

Unless you repent, I will make these my last words to you in this thread,

I have spoken frankly and you have called me "vulgar".I have spoken truthfully and you have called me "inciteful".I have spoken of my own, dearly bought experiences and trials, and you have called it "rubbish".

You have not demonstrated the falsity of my words or conclusions, choosing to attack my person and my integrity instead.

Very well, I'll offer you no more pearls to trample under foot.

You are right, though, to recall that we are not to please ourselves. And you might also remember what comes right after,

"Each of us should please his neighbour for good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." Romans 15:2-3

And to you, Elizabeth, I should say that every time this debate comes up, and it seems necessary to write frankly to those who deal in confusion, I think about you. I hate that even one word written here should cause you, a dear and gentle sister in the Lord, any pain. The Lord knows your heart, and he promises one day to dry your every tear.

As a Catholic I agree with Kathy that there is nothing, in general, wrong with inter-racial marriage. Obviously there are personal reason for not engaging in it and they are to be respected, but if two people and their families are accepting of such a marriage I cannot see any reason complain.

If you want to maintain distinct and particular communities then the key is not to stop marriages, but to restrict immigration. If people live together they are going to marry, if they live apart they will not. Even if they do not inter-marry immigration will fracture the territory into separate cultures and destroy the solidarity of the people.

"My son's carer is married to a white Australian girl (oh shock horror!!!)and they have a beautiful little one year old girl."

Good for them. I am a Christian (Calvinist) and I say better to marry a lovely Christian girl from Ethiopia than a Non-Christian blond from America. Remember we Christians are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for [God's] own possession, that [we] may proclaim the excellencies of him who called [us] out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once [we] were not a people, but now [we] are God's people; once [we] had not received mercy, but now [we] have received mercy."

It is against God's law for Christians to marry Non-Christians, even ones of our own culture and tradition. However, we do have the right to marry Christians of any ethnicity or tradition, because we are one people in Christ. That being said, I would prefer to marry a girl with fair skin and golden hair. Squarehead solidarity don'tcha know.

Anon-"I'm not Catholic Kathy ME don't you dare try to say your catholic faith has to be adhered to by all whites who are NOT catholic or even Christian."

How about this: "There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'" -Kuyper

I love Western Man as much as anyone here, but let's be reasonable. Making our phenotype and traditions into an idol will not help us at all. To reject Christ is to finish off the West. Our civilization is so intertwined with Christianity that it cannot be excised without destroying us.

A return to faith in the promise that was given to Abraham and the prophets and fulfilled in Jesus means, among other things: more babies, men who love their wives and defend their families, women who respect their husbands and marry as virgins, and a return to law and order. Good stuff, no?

Well, that response just proves my point. You have adopted a principle that means that 80% of the people your grandchildren or great grandchildren mix with will not be Catholic. Realistically that means that most of them will marry out of the faith.

In fact, if they really believe that non-discrimination is the height of ethics they will set out to prove how welcoming and non-discriminatory they are - how good a person they are - by aiming to marry the person least like themselves - the most "other" person - perhaps if they are a white Christian they will marry an African Muslim and think they are virtuous in doing so.

"I WANT"????

Not to mention "my communal identity "

It is not what you or I want, but what God wants.. You seem to have a problem understanding this.

But we need to be a little more careful in coming to our understanding of what God wants. That involves a consideration of scripture, of Church tradition, of reason, of natural law and of conscience.

I do believe that God wants us to work honourably to sustain our distinct communities. But that requires explanation on my part to my readers, not a bland assertion that I am uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of God.

Kathy, you need to be careful to avoid the following approach:

a) I should do what God wantsb) Therefore, I will change my language from "I want" to "God wants me to..."

Just to extend my last comment, Kathy has managed to quote the Pope urging people to "put an end to all forms of racism, discrimination and intolerance" and then write about her child:

My daughter goes to a very good Christian school.. No non Christians allowed. She has made many friends.. Guess what they are all Christians...

So Kathy is not following the Pope's instructions. The Pope wants to put an end to *all* forms of discrimination and yet Kathy clearly discriminates aganst non-Christians. Tsk, tsk.

So is Kathy disobeying God's commands as revealed by the Pope? Should she send her child to a school with a carefully selected balance of students from each religion and race of the world?

Or, maybe Kathy could prove she is the best follower of God's commands as revealed by the Pope, and prove herself to be the most non-discriminatory person, by sending her daughter to be raised in Afghanistan in an Islamic school. How more non-discriminatory could you get than that!

As it happens, Kathy is choosing to practise an unprincipled exception. The liberal principles she is running with are unworkable - they would destroy the faith she believes in if implemented consistently - so she chooses to implement them inconsistently.

But it's not easy to hold to inconsistencies. If Kathy's daughter is raised to believe that non-discrimination is the height of ethics, then there's a good chance she'll follow on with that principle all the way and think her mother "bigoted" or "prejudiced" for not accepting Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and atheists as perfectly equal and acceptable as school mates and marriage partners.

Is this "speculative nonsense" as Kathy chooses to believe. No, it's how the West has developed in practice over past decades. It's life on the ground.

And the answer is to think through the consequences of the principles you adopt - to apply the virtue of prescience - and to reject those principles which have damaging consequences.

I was going to a concert tonight, but it's sold out, so I stopped at a bookstore on the way back and found a biography on Sir Richard Burton (Edward Rice)

There is an interesting chapter about Burton's "black wife", actually Indian mistress (es). Apparently, it was a common practice for a while in colonial India, that is until the fruits of these illicit unions became too obvious to ignore.

Rice writes, quoting a contemporary,

"However these liaisons had their dark side. ' These unions produced a host of half-castes, mulattoes, ' neither fish not fowls, not good red herring,' who were equally despised by the races of both progenitors."

Christian missionaries spoke out against the liaisons. Britain went from subsidising interracial marriages to sending boat loads of British women "fishing fleets" to take discourage it.

I suppose the proponents of interracial unions will say that the British were prejudiced, but it seems to me that's the wrong word for a change in attitude resulting from experience. The British tried miscegenation, found it damaging and then discouraged it. That's not prejudicial; that's postjudicial, and the basis of reason.

Historically I don't think any people have looked at the mixing of their people with another people as a good thing. Especially with the idea that it will eventually end their own people and this is a good thing.This is only a modern western mental disease.I see now some Christians regard their religion as the only common binding element to other people.An interesting thing is that the Churches in Europe who were for Somali immigration supported it because they said some were Christian.The immigrants when they arrive seem to be Muslim.

I get the impression that the other side thinks only white men suffer from interracial pairings, and the suffering of white men is insignificant.

I disagree for two reasons: Human suffering is a problem that should arouse any decent person's sympathy.

And two, it isn't just white men who suffer, not at least in America do they suffer the most. It turns out that black women and Asian men, both representing most poorly the physical expressions if their sex, do the worst interracially. Whereas when white men forsake their women the women go to black men, and when white women forsake their men, the men go to Asian women, black women and Asian men often just end up alone.

It may surprise you to know that at least on youtube, the most frequent critics of interracial unions are black women, not Nazis.

Anyway, you can check out the data for yourself if you want:

Steve Sailer's article on the subject is here along with the data:

http://www.isteve.com/islovecolorblind.htm

OkCupid's data you can find by googling "okcupid race dating"

Steve Sailer is a conservative writer who is in an interracial union and blames the gap on the basics of sexual attraction.

OkCupid is a standard liberal dating service which blames the racial gaps on, what else, white racism and internalised self loathing in minorities.

You'll notice though that no one doubts there are a whole lot of lonely, frustrated black women and Asian men. What a credit to interracial unions, huh?

Susan Smith's black murderer turned out to be a hoax, even though there supposedly witnesses.

Seal's kid looks mostly like him, but Heidi is there as well. I don't know what the girl's father looks like to know if she resembles him more than her mother. But that just goes to my point. There's no mystical perfect blending with two white people that doesn't happen with an interracial pairing. The range is extremely variable. I mean really. Weak and strong genes? Take a genetics course, plz. People see more similarity when the kids are from their co-ethnic group, but that doesn't mean more is necessarily there. This is of course well known. Steve Sailer's article is massively out of date, as the 100+ percent increases in intermarriage between white women and Asian men and black women and white men show.

@ ANO, LOL Yes, take a genetic course. Recessive and dominant genes and gene expressions are a biological fact. Just are distinct sub species(Races).

I grew up in Perth and the only time I had troubles with blacks was on the train, train stations and outside the train stations. Been mugged once, and came close to being assaulted with knives on 3 occasions. Yep all black. Lucky I'm a fast runner.

e) is being done if you consider that a child becomes "black" when it is mixed. Look at the States. It is a transfer of children from one group to another.

First, the language is "forcible" transfer. Secondly, a white woman who has a child with a non-white father does not mean a child has been transferred between groups. White parents who have their children taken away from them and then given to non-white guardians is forcible transfer.

Coercion - not just propaganda but coercion - is one of the key elements in determining what constitutes "genocide".

You don't understand Lucille when you are born part black in the U.S.A. You are classified as Black it is a forcible classification by the state.It is a transfer of offspring legally from one group to another.

Coercion - not just propaganda but coercion - is one of the key elements in determining what constitutes "genocide".

It is kind of vague who determines when coercion is taking place?The whites of South Africa are under genocide watch.Threats have been made against them aswell as violence.How is this any different from whats happening elsewhere in the west.Direct threats are being made by people on the left and violent crime is being committed by blacks boarding on pogroms in the states.This is largely hushed up and censored.Do we honestly need someone to explicitly say "We are genociding you!" before you would be satisfied?Do you honestly think people are going to admit to it?When did any of histories major genocides start with a warning issued to all parties. One of the great weaknesses of Western white Europeans is that they cannot comprehend themselves being the victims of genocide. While everyone else can.

Professor Andrew Fraser on the problems associated with African immigration:

"At the low end of the market for Third World immigrants, tensions are already appearing between white Australians and the growing numbers of black, sub-Saharan Africans settled here by the transnational refugee industry. One can safely predict that, no matter how large this particular Third World colony becomes, black Africans will never become a "market-dominant minority" in Australia. On the contrary, experience "practically everywhere in the world tells us that an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems." Unfortunately, experience also demonstrates that any such suggestion will produce nothing short of a hysterical reaction among Australian journalists and academics.

For Australian intellectual and cultural elites, it does not seem to matter that support for such observations can be found in countless academic and official sources. After all, it is hardly news that violent criminals of any race are likely to be people with low IQs who display poor impulse control. Nor is it difficult to establish that, on average, black sub-Saharan Africans score around 70-75 on IQ tests while white Europeans have a mean score of 100 and East Asians about 105. It is equally well-known that young black men have higher levels of serum testosterone-often associated with impulsive behavior and poor judgment-than whites or East Asians. Now, this does not mean that black Africans carry a "crime gene." Nor can one say that "blacks are genetically more crime-prone than whites." But, as Michael Levin points out, "it does make sense to say that blacks are more prone to behavior that is in fact criminalized in virtually all societies."

This is the price one pays for following the left-politics down to the letter. (As part of a crazed ideal of a "World Government" in order to bring world peace and global love for humanity. A delusional view from the radical 1970s era that will fail in practice.)

(3) Sweden...=> http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/muslim_rape_wave_in_sweden/(Isn't that country the rape capital of Europe?)

(4) Others around the world...=> http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/07/norwegian-government-covering-up.html

(5) Recently in the UK...=> http://newsone.com/world/tjstarr/somali-girl-gang-uk-stump-white-girl-senseless-serve-no-jail-time/

Political correctness demands that whites treat minorities fairly and propping them up with Govt sponsored benefits/policies. Its the current generation of "White Guilt" trend...So, minorities will eventually abuse it to their advantage.

Its simple human behaviour: If you give someone the opportunity or power to do it, they will. The greatest flaw is the presumption that all humans are good people by default.

Its the 10-80-10 rule of human behaviour...

* 10% are truely bad.

* 80% can be convinced to be good or bad. But are often leaning to good for most of the time.

* 10% are truely good.

Laws, policies, etc doesn't account for this. That's why the legal system ends up doing too much or too little.

Why on earth would a White women date outside of her race? We only account for 8% of the entire world and only 2% of that is WHITE WOMEN of child bearing age. It's disgusting. Too much social engineering and propaganda making young Whites think its "cool" to date outside of their race and have mixed race babies. Your throwing away your own heritage.

I am just stupefied by the comments I have read on here. It simply blows my mind... first none of you take the relatively logical sequence of possible societal result and patterns of behavior, secondly, "Africans" can't be nominated the way some do here, its like saying all Australians are bogans" There is not much difference in that statement. And finally, not regenerating your blood leads to degeneration! Conditioning one ethnic group to remain among the same community is just DUMB.Now a group of people that have done wrong towards another member of the society that is how it should be discussed instead of a media flame slogan of "Black Australians" coz, hey that is what they are and it is the social tissue this government is building!!! now for all the proud anglos... to your surprise you have more mongoloid genes than Caucasoid ones-